Amos writes:
> Dear List Members,> Does any of you know about an English language Russian list?> Or better yet, somebody with an e-mail address in Russia? If you> know any of the above, please let me know.> Thanks in adavance,> Amos
Amos:
Your inquiry is very broad. If you have access to full internet all the
<relcom> groups are in Russia. There are all sorts of subcategories.
You may want to try <relcom.newuser>.
Some of the lists do have periodically English messages also. If you are
trying for something specific, perhaps I can assist you. We have an office
in Moscow with an email address, but it is easier to get hold of me
here.:-).
Zdrastvuytye,Jeliko

I have a gratitude to express to Tony Pace, because he, at times, makes me
learn more about history than I did from my old history teachers. Now one
(if not the only) basis calling Svatopluk,s Duchy *Great Moravian Empire*
is the oft discussed text of Constantine Porphyrogenitus "De Administrando
Imperio*. In responese to Tony's creative scissoring from the text, I have
reread the book yesterday and besides reaffirming that the good emperor did
not have a good geography education, found another interesting trend. The
good emperor also talks of *megalni Francia*, *megalni Croatia*, *megalni
Armenia* besides *megalni Moravia*. In all of the cases he is discussing a
particular country and region and distinguishes part of that region or
country from another region of the same country or region by the adjective
"megalni". When he discusses some hostage being moved by the Frank emperor
from the north Italian region of the Frank Empire to its northern parts he
refers to the northern part as *megalni Francia*. When he discusses some of
the Croatian settlements he distinguishes it from another part that he
refers to as *megalni Croatia*. He does the same thing with Armenia when
discussing a region controlled by one group and distinguishes it from
another that he calls *megalni Armenia*. In all fairness to Hungary's
northern neighbors, there is significant evidence that parts of it were
christianized prior to the writing of the text, thus Porphyrogenitus
referring to the area in toto as *unbaptized* may not be correct. Or is it?
It sure looks like that the good emperor was using *megalni* as a term for
"upper" or "further" and the term had nothing to do with the per se
"greatness" of the realm. He states that the area north of the Turks (which
is his term for the Hungarians) was occupied by the White Croats. From
Constantinople it was an area somewhat remote and there were many Slavs
*unbapized* north of the Turks, so he may have been correct when using the
term for *megalni Moravia* in the same manner as he used it for all of the
other regions.
Unfortunatly the same word root is also the source for "megalomania", which
some history is oft converted into.
IMHO, we could feed all the world with the eggs scraped from the faces if
we had a reverse time machine.
Regards,Jeliko.

Date sent: 8-JAN-1995 11:11:42
If I understand the gist of Jeliko's "Great as in Moravia" message, he is
saying that the name "Great Moravia" is a misnomer. What is the point?
Whether it was great or not is immaterial: it needs to be called
something, and Great Moravian Empire (for better or for worse) has been
pretty well established. There's no point in nit-picking: Germania is
apparently from a Celtic word, misapplied by Tacitius. The word has stuck
throughout time.
Yes, Moravia (by any name) was very barbaric during the 9th century. So
was England, Norway, and even Saxony. I haven't read on the subject as
much as Tony Pace or Jeliko, but what I have read indicated that while the
mass of the peasantry was pagan, the nobility was mostly Chrisitianized or
Christianizing. And while the Pope supported Methodios, the nobility
supported Wichen, and were busy Francifying (spell?) themselves. And even
if the common people were not good Christians, neither were the Frankish
peasants who, 100 years later, were stealing communion wafers to crumble
over their fields in order to ensure a good harvest.
All of Northern Europe, from Kent to Krakow, was pretty damn barbaric
during the 9th century.
Thomas Breed
"Like Prometheus still chained to that rock
In the midst of a free world"

> writes: (including some of Norb's exchange)> >>If this was not an occupation, please give me a term which fits.> >> > The act itself was a conquest.
Gee, I prefer "manifest destiny" it sounds so much better.:-) But more
seriously, before somebody gets the idea that I am PC, the Hungarians got
first into the area NOT because the Pechenegs chased them out, but because
their assistance was asked for first by Svatopluk against the
Frankish/Bulgarian alliance when Svatopluk tried to assert his
independence from Arnulf (later other folks asked also for some assistance
such as Leo from Constantinople (against the Bulgarians) and later Arnulf
against Svatopluk. At least some of the contemporary sources do refer to
parts of the Carpathian basin, as the "deserts" of the Avars, and parts of
the region where a borderland between the Bulgars in the East and the
Franks on the west both of whom had variously independent fiefdoms in the
area. But this frontier was probably not a well populated region. Who
the hell would like to live in war zones. The cordon sanitair is not a
recent invention. The army traveling back and forth was familiar with the
region and aware of its strengths and weeknesses. Please remeber the the
area was controlled by the Avars for some hundreds of years (much longer
than any reference to the Slavic control duration) Thus, the elimination of
the Avar rule did create some, but not complete, power vacuum in the
Carpathian basin before the arrival of the Hungarians. Continuity is an
interesting problem. Recent excavations in Western Hungary do indicate that
some Roman villas had continuity much longer than justified by contemporary
documents. Some people will always stay, while even the majority may leave.
At the same time, our friend Porphyrogenitus describes abandoned Roman
cities in what is now Moldavia with Pechenegs making camp nearby. But the
same is proven for England where remnants of Saxon camps are found in
apparently abandoned Roman cities.
> I'll stop nit picking: conquest it is.
I find it totally ridiculous to discuss words today with their current
meanings while referring to events of a 1000 years ago.
> >>Let's not use the name "Slovakia" but instead refer to the> >>Eastern and South-Eastern lands of the Great Moravian Empire. The> >>Hungarians seized controll of these lands. If this was not occupation,> >>what was it?
I find the current references to the GME equally ridiculous.
> >answer your question, did the poor souls who got "occupied" by the
Hungarians
> >ever try to ressurect their "occupied" state? In fact, was there ever a> >collective memory (on the part of the "occupied") of their once
"independent"
> >state?
Then (and now I may contradict myself because I do feel that it is partly
true today) as now when regimes change (my experience is restricted to the
German rule and the Russian rule in Eastern Europe) some people in the
leadership become "fellow travelers" and some folks look out only for their
own economic welfar. Now going back to those days IMHO! if I was a peasant
serf and the regime was upset that kept me in serfdom and now I was free, I
may not have given a damn about the change in regimes. If I was a "slave",
I may have even rejoiced about the old master disappearing. Both the locals
and the newcomers were a mixed population. So "nationality" is not a good
term for describing them.
And contrary to the horrible description of slaughter from the contemporary
authors. A lot of people survived whether they were Avars when the Franks
and the then their allies the Saxons and Slavs came or when the folks today
called Hungarians arrived. If I was an Avar, for example, in the area, what
difference did it make that Franks, Slavs or Hungarians were in control?
Not much. The problem is that the history of the area is a continuum. You
cannot start by the claim that everything was an idyllic Christian paradise
and then the monster "Uhors" came in and ruined it all. There were a lot of
folks who came before them in the same manner. The contemporary sources
claim identical treatment of the Avars by the Franks and their allies the
Slavs. One group was not too different from the other.
> I found some of Jeliko's barbs a bit harsh, but agreed with much of what
he
> wrote. I won't argue and never argued that the Great Moravian Empire was> formidable in any real sense. That doesn't mean, however, that it did
not
> exist.
Well I am just full of barbs, mainly because I am a "barbarian".
I do not think that anyone questions that Svatopluk existed and that he and
his realm, for a time, became independent of the East Franks. What he
controlled and whether it was an empire is another question. If we refer to
everybody else's realm as an empire so be it, but it's megalomaniac use is
irritating.
> Not all lands that were seized during the Hungarian conquest remained> Hungarian.
All you have to do is look at the maps. :-) The accused "oppressors" are
the ones with the diminishing territory, while being accused of
expansionism.
>The area that is present day Moravia (more or less) was seized> by the PremyslidsI believe I read somewhere that it was initially within> the Hungarian lands: correct me if I'm wrong). It COULD be argued that> the continuation of Bohemia and Moravia marks a continuation of the G.M.> political legacy (Hell, it HAS been argued).
Probably the least by the poor Moravians, for whom it was named. No wonder
some of the Moravian Brethren came over here and tried to live with Indians
rather than stay there. :-) (just so it is not taken as a barb!)
>The connection would exist> much in the same way that there is a connection between the Holy Roman> Empire and Germany (large unit breaks apart, one particular part
[Prussia]
> eventually forms a political unit in roughly the same region).
Well let's be picky, but the Prussians (an originally Slav folks) were not
really in the region that was ever part of the original Roman empire and
they are even late comers into the Holy Roman Empire.
> I have real reservations about this, however, because many of this
theories
> supporters have traditionally been Czech nationalists, and Bohemia was> associated with G.M. for such a short time.
No argument there.
> >>Of course, we could always ask a mathematician and be enlightened. :)> >> > Oh gosh! Don't even say that!!!!!!!!! ;-)))> >> > Norb> Too late, now I guess I'll have to take the consequences.
We all do.
>Please, correct> me on any errors: I feel as if I'm studying calculus when I study this> period :).
Now you are really wrong, calculus has its rules and it can not be
supported by personal interpretations. You can use "fuzzy logic", at best.
Regards,Jeliko

>Felado : Eva S. Balogh>E-mail : >Temakor: Nationalism--drivel? ( 19 sor )>Idopont: Mon Jan 2 16:24:16 EST 1995 HUNGARY #183>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
First Eva I just want to say that I tried to post this earlier but for
whatever reason
it failed to make it's inteneded destination. So A little late but I will
try once more
I have cleaned it up a little incase size counts as my first attempt was
admittedly
long winded......<g>
>to give an example from Ho1man-Szekfu3. I remember of sitting down with one>of the earlier volumes of their work because I have only a very average>knowledge of medieval, early modern Hungarian history and decided it was time>to read a bit more. And what do I read, that the ruin of the soil in the>Great Plains was entirely due to the Turkish occupation. Now, really, one
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is known to me that great damage is possible during such an invasion.
Large armies on the move through the countryside can cause great
distruction. I don't think I would be revealing any great unknown by saysing
that for the most basic of reasons, armies tend to be resouce hogs. They
consume or destroy most of whatever is in their reach. Beast of burden and
heavey equipment, such as they were for that time would also have to be factore
d
in as tearing up the land. The virtual depopulation of huge areas and the
consiquent
shortage of farmers due to either their death or enslavement is an other
factor.....
I have not even mentioned any deliberate destruction by the Turkish army or
weather
conditions both legitimate factors must be concidered. Finaly the duration
of the
Turkish occupation is also a critical factor as there legacy would have been
far reaching.
All these factors deserve careful consideration in the question of the
Turkish spoiling of
the land. Damage done by armies, agricultural collapse due to depopulation,
the length of
detrimental rule by an occupying army and any adverse weather condition <yet
to be determind>
all would have played a major roll in what might now be interpreted by some
as the spoiling of
the soil, by theTurks in Hungary. I don't condone in accurat revisionist
history. History is best
told with complete and acurate factual disclosure. However history seldome
does justice to the
historical emotions of the time. It is possible that the lack of food and
resources and the lack
people to produce same has resaulted in an incorrect conclusion that has
survived to modern
days. But what history books fail at is the tragic emotions of the time.
Most history books fail
in showing this. In history books nation tradegies are reduced to numbers
and statistics. Maybe,
just maybe Holman_Sekfu are guilty of being a little too close emotionaly to
the Hungarian Tragedy.
But their failure pails in comparision to the revisionist garbage that the
Solcialist/Commies taught in.
Noe there is an outrage.......! ! !
>doesn't have to know much to know that this is rubbish. It must have been many>centuries of mismanagement of the soil which made it what it is today: szikes
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^
I must admit I am a little confused as to which time you are referencing.
Since
you refered to reading about Medival Hungary I have to asume you are talking
about damage in that time.
My responce to the modern day distruction of the land has to point at least
in part to, YES again
THose that were in charge. The Socialist/Commies. One does not have to be
a commie hater to
know this. The facts of the past years shout it out loud. Who missmanaged
the land in the modern
day equasion it was those in charge. With there halfbaked schemes and
phoney statistics.......
>(saline?). Unfortunately, most East-European nationalism is this kind. The>most important thing is to be objective and not to put your own nation above
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>others. It is that kind of nationalism which I find abhorrent.
^^^^^^^^^
Here, in many cases you are telling people to lay down and die....
If you don't put yourself infront then you are at the back, where you might
not get fed. Sadly this is for the most part the history of the human animal.
But can you realy respect a person who values his life or his peoples lives
so little
that he will not struggle to improve it. There have always been people
willing to
take advantage of any weakness they see in others. It happens in individual
charecter as well as national charecter. Nationaslism is a way of grouping to
improve ones chances.The history in Europe is long and filled with much
struggle.
For centuries It was not a question of preference, just a question of
survival.
Nationalism was a nessessity, a way of pulling together when the going was
tough. Would you offer comfort to the Chechen people that they would be OK if
they just stopped trying to keep there Identity and became good Russians?
Would you councel them to stop fighting & dying for there Identity because
others
want what they have..? Namely oil..! Should they go quitely into extinction so
you can have peace...? Should the Tibetans go quitly into extiction because
China wants their land and has the power to take it..? Add all the honest
freedom
struggles in the world and that's how many legitamate reason there are for
nationism
in the world. I think everone should have the right to selfdetermination.
Eva I admit
there is also a sinister evil face to nationalism but that is the face of
men not some system......
I want a caring world, where the weak and wretched
can feel whole and be fully enabled.
I want a gentle world where the poverty exsists only
in history books and sickness is only a bad memory.
I want a safe world for all the children of the this panet.
So they can know war only as the distant darkness we must avoid.
But I only have this world where I compete or do without.
And my day is measured by the pain that I feel.
=>Palko<=
Sadly there are still too many places in the world where my verse still
rings true
In the past we could not hope to help everyone so we helped ourselves.
Families became became Clans and Tribes and they in turn became nations.
As our understanding and abilities improve we become better providers.
Reletive to his knowlage man has, though hesatating habitualy extended his
arms
and excepted a bigger and bigger community.
One day we will become that which we realy are, a global community.
It will not depend on vilifying the past but understanding it.
It will also depend on how we handle the evil that lurks in us all...
Just my opinion Pali....
#########################################
Pal Gyoni ( )
\/\/arm Greetz Everyone.......
*****************************************
Lost somewhere on the InterNet.......
If you should find me, tell me....hehe....
#########################################
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
_/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/
. _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/

Date sent: 8-JAN-1995 14:23:26
>>>> I'll stop nit picking: conquest it is.>>I find it totally ridiculous to discuss words today with their current>meanings while referring to events of a 1000 years ago.>
Communication relies on words. Without words, there is no communication,
no debate, etc. I suppose we could hold this conversation in Old Church
Slavonic, or Medieval Latin, or Byzantine Greek, so that the words are more
applicable to the past time, but I think that would make this conversation
even more esoteric than it already it (unbelievable). :)
>> >>Let's not use the name "Slovakia" but instead refer to the>> >>Eastern and South-Eastern lands of the Great Moravian Empire. The>> >>Hungarians seized controll of these lands. If this was not occupation,>> >>what was it?>>I find the current references to the GME equally ridiculous.>
Because it wasn't a great empire? Aren't you debating proper terms for
something that has been gone 1,000 years? It has to be referred to as
something, and most references call it the Great Moravian Empire.
>You>cannot start by the claim that everything was an idyllic Christian paradise>and then the monster "Uhors" came in and ruined it all. There were a lot of>folks who came before them in the same manner. The contemporary sources>claim identical treatment of the Avars by the Franks and their allies the>Slavs. One group was not too different from the other.>
Agreed. I wt cl ai G.M.E. (or whatever) was a Christian paradise.
I won't claim tHugarians were unique in being barbaric either: most of
Northern Europe was. IMHO I wouldn't want to live in that time.
>>Well I am just full of barbs, mainly because I am a "barbarian".
Glad to know there are few around still. :)
>I do not think that anyone questions that Svatopluk existed and that he and>his realm, for a time, became independent of the East Franks. What he>controlled and whether it was an empire is another question. If we refer to>everybody else's realm as an empire so be it, but it's megalomaniac use is>irritating.
I use the term because that was the name I learned and have read about.
There's a lot of range in meaning in almost any word: witness the debate
about the term "state." The title "King" has varied immensely in meaning
from ancient times to the present.
Despite their flaws, titles are necessary for communication. I thought you
said it was ridiculous to debate words, anyway, so why are we writing so
much on the subject?
>>> Not all lands that were seized during the Hungarian conquest remained>> Hungarian.>>All you have to do is look at the maps. :-) The accused "oppressors" are>the ones with the diminishing territory, while being accused of>expansionism.
Their leaders may have been at time expansionistic, but as you stated once:
the policies and identities of leaders didn't impress most of those who
were ruled. Ethnic nationalism is a recent development, and one I find
mostly unpleasant.
>>Probably the least by the poor Moravians, for whom it was named. No wonder>some of the Moravian Brethren came over here and tried to live with Indians>rather than stay there. :-) (just so it is not taken as a barb!)>>>The connection would exist>> much in the same way that there is a connection between the Holy Roman>> Empire and Germany (large unit breaks apart, one particular part>[Prussia]>> eventually forms a political unit in roughly the same region).>>Well let's be picky, but the Prussians (an originally Slav folks) were not>really in the region that was ever part of the original Roman empire and>they are even late comers into the Holy Roman Empire.
The Prussians were a Baltic people (as opposed to the Pomeranians,
Abdorites, or Ljutici who lived close by but were Wendic [Slavs]). The
Teutonic Knights crusaded against them, established serfdom, etc. The last
actual Prussian speakers died out in the 16th century. They were replaced
by Polish and German speakers (through assimilation and colonization).
Brandenburg fused with Prussia, and Brandenburg (from Wendic Crusade times
on) had been part of the Holy Roman Empire. Brandenburg eventually became
the political center of what people call Prussia. During the 19th Century,
Prussia absorbed much of what had been the Holy Roman Empire.
Given a couple days I could find names, dates, and citations if anyone is
interested. Of course, they too could find names, dates, and citations.
Cheers,
Thomas Breed
"Like Prometheus still chained to that rock
In the midst of a free world"

Subject: Re: fatherland and national pride
From: Charles,
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 07:32:49 CST
In article > Charles,
writes:
>On Fri, 6 Jan 1995 23:28:24 GMT > said:>>>>numerous contributors to this list have frequently read far>>more into my postings than have been there.>>>--Hmmm. Then there is less to you than appears on the surface?
"still waters run deep". but i am rarely still.
the easiest way to deal with me is to take what i write/say
at face value.
>>>it has been a source of consternation to have views and>>statements attributed to me which are the opposite of my own>>on the basis of unsuccessful attempts to "read between the lines">>and successful attempts to false adduce opinions on the basis of>>the actual text.>>--See, there's the problem. Very few people confine their>understanding of another's communication to the literal meaning>of the words.
i'm aware of that. it is also true that very few people can be relied
on to keep their word. so what? does that oblige me to break mine?
my answer is "definitely not".
>I suspect that it is because we all bring our own>meanings to the text.
i try to avoid doing so when trying to understand other peole
and/or their opinions.
>One forms conclusions about another's>communications from the context.
not jujst from the context, but from the context plus the
preconceptions
"one" injects.
>Some see you as anti-Hungarian.>I just think that you are a nit-picker,
both are misperceptions, but i expect that neither you nor others
are likely to concede that even if you were to realise it (and here
*i*
am injecting a view i have formed on the basis of my interpretation
of
what i have read in this list. i welcome the opportunity to concede
my expectation is false!)
> and I find you a very>amusing person.
i am flattered!
>>>>in short, read into what is there as you will at your own peril.>>--Of course that is what everyone does. Peril seems a bit strong,>but certainly there is a risk in reading anyone's post, especially>since we really don't know each other and can't see each other's>expressions.>>>but i do not accept any responsiblity for any conclusions you may>>draw through such endeavour, nor for any opinions you may
mistakenly
>>impute me to hold.>>--Then it is your position that a communicator has no obligation>for his or her communications?
no. my position is to try to express the substance of what i wish to
communicate in such a way that it requires no *reading between the
lines*
to grasp the meaning, that when in doubt, recourse to the oxford
dictionary will suffice to restore clarity.
the only exceptions have been my responses to ad hominem where a
measure of irony infected my contributions, causing the language to
appear more elliptic than otherwise. that much "poetic licence"
i allow(ed) myself!
>It's all up to the other guy?
no, not at all. but it is up to the recipient to seek cryptic
meaning
only when no sense is discernible from the literal words. if the
text
seems non-sensical on the basis of preconceptions imposed by the
recipient,
then my advice to the recipient, should (s)he be interested in
understanding
my communication injected, is to apply occam's razor.
>>>>i hope i ahve been sufficiently pompous and clear.>>Well, I have known people who were both more pompous and more nearly>clear, but you'll do for now. It just doesn't do to take you too>seriously.>>>Charles
i guess i need more practice thenn.
d.a.

Subject: Re: Corresponding in Hungarian
From: Charles,
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 07:50:52 CST
In article > Charles,
writes:
>--I must rise to defend Brother Bokor.
with all due respect, i am not the member of any order, so i do not
merit the title "brother", no matter how kind the intent.
in any event, i have a great dislike for titles.
> He is a very entertaining fellow.> He is what I believe the French call a "type." There is>no mortal sin in marching to a different drum.
i am not aware of marching, and if my gait seems regular and
constrained enough to warrant its being labelled "marching", then
it is most unlikely that it be to the beat of any drum, as i
suffer from severe congential arhythmia.
>Delete him if you must,
please do not delete me! unlike our domesticated feline companions
i have but one life, and it is one which i cherish to the utmost
degree. have your way with my posting, but spare me!
>but read his postings first for the sheer enjoyment of>his convolutled rhetoric. While he is no Bill Buckley,
who or what is bill buckley?
>he has his points. It is, of course, unfortunate that he considers
the
>Encyclopedia Britannica to be the final authority in economic,>political, and social matters,
i do *not* consider the encycylopaedia britannica to be the ultimate
authority on any of these matters. i merely use it as a first source.
i have been accused of presenting personal opinion as if it were
fact.
yet on every occasion i can recall --- and not being a pachyderm it
is possible that my memory is less than perfect --- i have given
refernces for my claims, sometimes from the encyclopaedia britannica,
sometimes from the sod, and frequently from elsewhere. i naively
assumed that the encyclopaedia britannica would be an acceptable
first
reference.
>but there are worse sins. And>he has provided me with some excellent suggestions about>Australian wine.
one of the benefits of a misspent youth.
d.a.

In article >
writes:
>From: >Subject: Re: What does a typical Hungarian look like?>Date: 5 Jan 95 23:49:35 EST>> a study in population genetics claiming little>> actual difference in the genetic make-up of these groups/people/nations/>[...]>> 'We report no differences between Ugric speakers in Hungary and Slavic>> speakers to their north and south. This may be due to the assimilation of> Hugh implied, very neatly, in another thread that while the ethnic>battles are being fought in the realm of cultural constructs, they employ>evidence as if it were stripped of its cultural guise. The following>quotation is from a book coming to slightly different conclusions from>the paper quoted above. But that is not the puropse of the following quote.>The book's (i.e. the following quotation's) last paragraph is an enlightened>example of a clear refusal to play this game, and of a contribution to>the construction of a culture which gives priority to appealing ethical>values, without dressing them up as self-evident or logical conclusions>derived from uninterpreted (historical, genetic...) facts.>Martin>----------------->From: A. Czeiczel, et al, (1991) Genetics of the Hungarian Population> [...] Berlin: Springer.>p. 333: "7. The genetic distance between the Hungarian reference population>and the reference population of _Slav_ was the shortest. The data of genetic>markers was compiled from the Czechs, Polish and Russian studies. However,>the genetic distances are higher between Hungarina ethnic groups and Slavs>than between Germans and Slavs, except the Budapest inhabitants.> "Unfortuantely, it was not possible to find enough genetic marker>data on other populations in neighboring countries (e.g. Rumanians). Hence,>it was impossible to make comprehensive studies.> "It does not seem to be an exaggerated statement that now the>populations of Central Europe have very similar genetic make-up. The>study of ecogenetic traits [...] and of lactose digestion capacity [...]>also resulted in a data set which indicate[s] that the present Hungarian>population is similar to other Central-European populations not only>culturally but also genetically.> "Our findings may engender some thoughts which are not necessarily>without political overtones. In the past, the historical events included>much hostility and many wars among nations and ethnic groups in Central>Europe. The genetic data indicate a strong kinship among the populations>of these nations and it may help us to establish a good 'phenotypic'>connection as well. It is now time to emphasize common roots, i.e. the>genetic unity in spite of national diversity and political differences>because it may strengthen the bonds of relationships between these>populations of Central Europe."
The quote above was not from the same study - I believe the one I cited was
more extensive and involved more characters and all European nations.
However, its conclusions, while not political in nature, echo the same as
Czeizel's. Which, alas, does not prevent anyone from citing ethnic hatred as
history repeatedly tells us.
Gabor Lovei

Subject: Corresponding in Hungarian
From: EvaB459762
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 16:01:49 -0500
In article > , writes:
>Imi Bokor is a very irritating fellow. I admire Charles for his
patience. As
>you can see, I am not as patient as he is. Normally, I try to be
polite to
>fellow netters but with him, I just can't help myself.>>Udv, Eva
sad indeed am i, for i know not where i have overstepped the bounds
of politeness in exchanges with your goodself!
the one instance which came to my attention of my form of address
causing you discomfit was when i was inconistent with your usage
of an upper case letter for the initial of your given name. i
thoughtthat
the matter had been cleared up at the time, and to prevent recurrence
i undertook that subsequent texts of my authorship in this grou[
would
use only the one case for the characters.
i do not recall having even accidentally failed to abide by my
undertaking.
pray tell, how do i irritate you? i shall do my best to avoid doing
so if
i can.
d.a.